Gordon Petch

This decision addresses the issue of costs following the dismissal of the applicants' appeal under the Building Code Act.

The respondent, Morrisburg Dock Expansion Inc., sought substantial indemnity costs, while the applicants argued for a significantly lower amount, claiming public interest litigant status and citing issues with their former counsel's conduct.

The court found the applicants did not meet the high threshold for public interest litigants and that their conduct, through counsel, had unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings.

Considering the principles of indemnity, settlement encouragement, and sanctioning inappropriate behavior, the court awarded the respondent $121,692.23 in costs, payable within three months, acknowledging the amount was significant but justified by the respondent's success and the applicants' conduct.

The applicant school board appealed decisions of the City’s Chief Building Official concluding that a proposed refurbishment of school sports facilities with a private operator did not fall within a zoning by‑law exemption for land used only for teaching or instructional purposes.

The proposal would allow a private company to operate the facilities commercially for the majority of the time.

The court held that while incidental non‑school uses of school facilities may fall within the exemption, intensive commercial exploitation does not.

Given the scale and commercial nature of the proposed use, the project did not qualify for the exemption and required a zoning variance through the municipal planning process.